Just wondering if anyone has used a brush like this:
http://www.needledoctor.com/Listener-Select-12-Record-Cleaning-Brush
for wet cleaning? At first glance it seems like it would be better than a MoFi brush, but I wonder if it would be too aggressive.

Just wondering if anyone has used a brush like this:
http://www.needledoctor.com/Listener-Select-12-Record-Cleaning-Brush
for wet cleaning? At first glance it seems like it would be better than a MoFi brush, but I wonder if it would be too aggressive.

Honestly Tanker, I have never used these brushes, but have been very tempted to try at least one.

I have been using four dedicated Mo-Fi Brush Pads for use with AIVS Cleaning Fluids, and generally do a complete 4-step regimem, using the Enzymatic, Super Cleaner, Archivist Formula, and the lastly, the Pure Water Rinse with a VPI 16.5 RCM.

I know, and speak often with Jim Pendelton, the president-owner of Osage-AIVS. He's a really great guy, quickly responds to all emails, is always polite, and helpful with anything you wish to know, and I have been extremely satisfied using his Audio Intelligent Cleaning Solutions.

You can order direct from Osage, and I'm sure Jim would have no qualms at all over a full money back gaurantee if you were not satisfied. I'm sure Jim has placed much time, research, and testing into these brushes, and they should be very good.

Reason I thought of trying these brushes myself, is one downside of the Mo-Fi Brush Pads, is that they take quite a bit of fluids to prime them-keep them moistened. This would probably be lessened with a Brush like Jim's. The Mo-Fi Pads are probably a bit harder to clean as well.

The ads make some sense, that if this brush lasts longer in use, then it would be more ecomonical in the long run. Mark

I was also thinking that the bristles would get down into the grooves better to get caked on crud.

I have used a combination of the Osage brush ( well same brush diff name ) and Mofi for a long time. Works excellent.

I have used a combination of the Osage brush ( well same brush diff name ) and Mofi for a long time. Works excellent.

Hello Grumpy, and Happy Thanksgiving.
Where exactly Jim Pendelton sourced these particular brushes from, I have no idea?

I would assume Jim just didn't take a VPI Brush, or a clone of a Parastat Pad Center, and then Brand it with the Osage name.

From the explanations Jim provided me a few months back when he first came out with them, they sounded like they are of very high quality. I also get the impression that the Walker Brushes as well, are of high quality, and aren't exactly run of the mill offererings.
Mark

Anyone know the fiber diameters on these brushes? For a while I was using a diy brush that I thought had nice fine soft nylon bristles but upon viewing bristles up against record grooves under a microscope (metallurgical) it was apparent the bristles were not thin enough to really get into the grooves. It was eye-opening. Since IIRC LP grooves are 1 mil wide I think one would want fibers .5 mil (12 microns) or smaller.

Any threads on this already?

I was also thinking that the bristles would get down into the grooves better to get caked on crud.

Hello Tanker,
Jim P did get back to me about these questions, and about individual fiber-strand size on the Osage Brush.

Here's what he said in a nutshell: The Fiber-Strand size is .004". He states that the Mo-Fi, or Disc Doctor Brush Pads "might" get slightly better into the Groove, but in all actuality, no Pad, or Brush actually gets down deep into a Groove, and if a brush could, this might not actually be a very good thing, as the Brush-Pad could then possibly damage the fine Groove Modulations.

The Osage might do a better job of scrubbing-agitating, and the one downside of the Mo-Fi/Disc Doctor Pads is as I myself mentioned previously, if one is only cleaning one record, one would then be using, and perhaps wasting wuite a bit of cleaning product-rinse to prime the pad for use.

Of course, if one cleans quite a number of records in one sitting, this wouldn't be much of an issue.

From what I know, and can gather, a Brush's/Brush Pad's job is to just agitate the fluids around on the record's surface. It is the efficiency of the cleaners-rinses themselves to lift contaminants, and the brush's job to suspend these contaminants into a slurry, so then they can be removed-vacuumed away.

Hope this helps, Mark

thanks!

Hi Guys,

Mark mentioned this thread to me and I thought I would take a moment to explain a few points with the brush.

The brush is not a rebranded version of another brush. The Listener Select brush is hand-built at the Audio Elegance Audio Furniture Factory. Jeff Dicks, who owns Audio Elegance, actually does the work himself, and he also helped spec out the brush.

The brush does look a lot like other brushes on the market; particularly the Loricraft brush. Here are the differences: we use an American cherry handle for wet use durability. The surgical-grade nylon bristles are custom specified. The are better than anything else we could find at not fostering bacterial growth. There's only one plastics plant in the U.S. that manufactures bristles made of this particular material.

This is not to say that this brush is functionally any better than any other. I suggest to anyone that they use the brush that feels best in their hand. The function of the brush is to spread fluid. We strongly discourage scrubbing. Our extensive lab testing has proven that hard scrubbing can actually make the record harder to clean.

We do think we can control bacterial transfer better with this brush, and it can use less fluid than the pad-type brushes.

All of you should feel free to contact me with any questions about record cleaning that you may have. You don't need to feel obligated to be a customer to call or write. I enjoy helping everyone get better results and maybe enjoy the hobby just a bit more. I regularly pass out information on making your own record cleaning fluid and cleaning methodology.

Best regards.

Jim Pendleton
Osage Audio Products, LLC
573-696-3551
info@audiointelligent.com

Thank you Jim for these clarifications. Mark

Deleted-Multiple Post